Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Listo de diskutaj forumoj
Vi ne rajtas afiŝi mesaĝojn en ĉi tiu forumo. La minimuma necesa nivelo de la membreco por afiŝi mesaĝojn en ĉi tiu forumo estas Brain-Peono.
Temo: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
(V): Is that honest government?
That is the way our government is divided, it shouldnt be much of a surprise to anyone, really? It helps it be a more honest government, and is one reason why such a large scale conspiracy like 9/11 could not have taken place
Temo: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
Czuch: Some cases I think an army can go OTT to get the few. Eg... When the Russians used that gas to rescue hostages.
Surely after all this time instead of making things that kill, why hasn't a non-lethal (or as low as possible eg 99% safe) gas or chemical been developed for use in the field?
Temo: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
Czuch: Um The Geneva convention which the USA signed and practised during WWII and even were part of courts to which Axis military, etc were held to account for killing POW's.... was wrong?
Temo: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
(V): I said nothing about killing POWs???
I said if you had a bomb that only temporarily disabled people, you would end up with a problem of way too many POWs, as compared with if the bomb simply killed everyone
Czuch: Um you said that it'd be better to kill enemy troops rather then take them as POW's.
Sorry I wasn't quite precise, but technically it is supposed that you try if possible to take prisoners rather then kill everyone. One of the reason military bullets are jacketed.
Temo: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
Czuch: Seems to me that all the problems the US has to put up with regarding "detainees" it would be much easier to just shoot them all. Easier to shoot and bury them than it is to accommodate every whine of the left over their treatment
*note to critics: not saying we SHOULD do this. Just seems so odd that more of a stink is raised over the US and its actions and you hear almost NOTHING from the critics regarding the terrorists. Hamas fires rockets everyday into Israel. Israel does nothing for months. Finally Israel responds and WHAM, the critics are there defending poor Hamas and Gaza and condemning Israel But little to no mention of the constant rockets being fired into Israel. Were the tables turned, Israel would be condemned for the rocket fire and Hamas would be justified for a heavy handed response.
Temo: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
(V): yes, a bomb that releases a chemical, thats what I meant...... like I said a great idea, but its no wonder the military isnt much interested in developing it
"In Jewish law, although the human soul exists before birth, human life begins at birth, that is, at the time when the child is more than halfway emerged from the mother's body."
Which from experience seems to be true. Something happens at the moment of birth, it's like a rush of energy entering this world.
Czuch: Beacuse it is the termination of a possible life to be without consent. The baby might die (as in the physical element) before birth. The life is...... ""potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually"
(V): It's a biological fact that human life begins at conception. Science is settled on this question. Life is present at the moment of conception. And clearly, nothing significant differs from 5 mins before birth to 5 mins after. There is no energy rush. That is metaphysical mumbo jumbo.
Czuch: The idea of "potential" human life is just plain nonsense. It's not scientific. We know better these days what we are dealing with.
Sperm is alive. Basic biology. So is the egg. From these living cells comes another kind of life: human. At conception, we have life. There is no point in the human chain of existence where life of some kind wasn't present. So this notion of potential life flies in the face of the facts. And basic biology tells us what kind of life is present at conception.
Biology science is in agreement on this. Yes you can find scientists who will say otherwise, but the majority of scientists make the bold statement that there is NO QUESTION that human life begins at conception.
Czuch: Nope... it's a statement saying that only the parents have the ability to decide to have an abortion, and that it cannot be for silly reasons. Eg The mother's life is in danger in some way from the pregnancy, or like in some cases the mother develops cancer.. what then?
And you'll find that it is usually a joint decision in a relationship, but when it comes to a single person... ... I feel then things get complicated.
--Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated - A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualties have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualities at over 600,000.-- http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm
--Finally, they point out that more recent data confirm their findings and even suggest a higher figure. The British polling firm Opinion Research Business (ORB) asked 1,720 Iraqi adults last summer if they had lost family members by violence since 2003; 16% had lost one, and 5% two. Using the 2005 census total of 4,050,597 households in Iraq, this suggests 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion. Accounting for a standard margin of error, ORB says, "We believe the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063."-- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq
The Laws of War, US-Style: --More than three hundred Iraqi civilians died on 13 February 1991 when two US F-117 stealth bombers targeted the al-Amiriya bunker in Baghdad. Photographs of the charred and twisted bodies of women and children shocked a world which, thanks to Norman Schwarzkopf and CNN, had seen little of the horrors of the Gulf War. Pentagon officials, who claimed to have intelligence indicating the bunker was a command and control centre, denied knowledge of the civilian presence. Had they known, the attack would probably have been classed as a war crime.-- http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/byer01_.html
The list goes on. I could copy & paste for hours. Here is the pattern:
1. The U.S. bombs and kills civilians. 2. The military reports casualties of enemy combatants, but not civilians. 3. Third parties then report the civilian deaths. 4. U.S. Army denies it knew civilians were present. 5. Repeat ad infinitum.
The Usurper: So what. You google mined for those stats. As I correctly pointed out, no one knows for sure. You're using the WORST stats you could find. That's disingenuous. Also, you said the US murdered these Iraqis. That is a deliberate false statement. And as I have pointed out, most of the deaths were carried out the terrorists - the Muslim kind. ONLY where the US deliberately ignored civilians when they bombed an area or when they deliberately bombed civilians do you have a case that even comes close to murder. This is what I mean by propaganda. YOu use these terms so loosely that I just blow off everything else you say. You play so loosely with the facts that your credibility with me is in serious jeopardy. I'm beginning to think you will say anything, just to support your point. Facts be damned! Michael Moore IS a BIG FAT LIAR. Don't be like him.
Czuch: "For your version of 9/11 to work, it must work in all facets and in all and every instance....."
Not so. It is not a chain argument, but a cable argument. In a chain argument, you break one link, the whole case falls. In a cable argument, certain strands may snap, yet the cable hold.
There are so many strands in this cable as to amount to overwhelming proof of U.S. government complicity. You simply haven't researched it.
On the other hand, the official conspiracy theory is defeated at every point by overwhelming evidence. Again, you haven't researched it.
However, MANY Americans have researched it, and many more are doing so. The numbers of those who know are climbing and the truth, in this age of information, cannot be withheld.
It makes me sad. I'm sorry it happened. It makes me angry, that a group of Neo-Cons would destroy America. Many people who voted for Bush now have seen the evidence & become painfully reconciled to the truth. Many people who did not vote for Bush have gone through the painful experience of recognizing their Democratic leaders are also guilty of crimes.
The Founding Fathers recognized the dangers the centralized authority, standing armies, power concentrated in a few hands. It's why the Revolutionary War was fought. Those who worship American power today (YOU) are not moved by the spirit of 1776.
Artful Dodger: I'm using the best research available by disinterested parties, not the purposely deflated numbers of interested parties. Those are the numbers YOU choose to use. Why? Because you don't want to know the truth. That's ok. There are always those who will support war crimes with any justification and who will deny the evidence even when bodies are laying in front of them.
Temo: I'm using the best research available by disinterested parties, not the purposely deflated numbers of interested parties.
The Usurper: Rubbish. You're using google mined stats. I used the first one's I found. And one of the links gives numbers from 90,000-600,000 but concludes it's impossible to know. And your charge of murder is simply not true and a manipulation, sheer propaganda.
Czuch: "Can you give me somewhere to find where the FBI says they have confiscated video that they do not want to release?"
Do you want me to provide you with a Bush-Cheney confession tape also?
These confiscations are based on testimony. Maybe all these people are lying. Again, you would prefer to conjure up any nonsensical loophole you can find, rather than actually do any legitimate research of the issues. With someone so intent as you are to remain uninformed, what is the point of debate? You "see no evil, hear no evil," no matter the evidence.
Czuch: "Complicity" has a broad range of interpretation, from LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) to MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose). The evidence points more to MIHOP, but even LIHOP is a treasonable offence.
well I have decided to open a fellowship on knitting....Ursurper you are becoming so bizarre that Im starting to disbelieve everything you say....your facts are only other peoples opinions and mean nothing.....
I feel sorry for AD trying to moderate this board...I wouldnt be able to keep my mouth shut with a few of you in here
oh well as they say....there are lies, lies and damned lies....which category do you put yourself in? (aimed at all of you)
Im going to start my knitting classes hahahahahhaa
An independent UK/US group, the Iraq Body Count project (IBC), compiles reported Iraqi civilian deaths resulting from the invasion and occupation, including those caused directly by coalition military action, those caused directly by the Iraqi insurgency, and those resulting from excess crime (the Iraqi Body Count project claims that the Occupying Authority is responsible to prevent these deaths under international law). It shows a minimum of 89,369 and a maximum of 97,568 as of 27 November 2008.
This total represents deaths that have been published by at least two media organizations.[13] However, the IBC has been criticized for counting only a small percentage of the number of actual deaths because they only include deaths reported by respected media agencies.[73][87] IBC Director John Sloboda admits, "We've always said our work is an undercount, you can't possibly expect that a media-based analysis will get all the deaths."[88]